Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Section: 145

(a) Appeal to Supreme Court-New plea-Plea of requirements of S. 145, Evidence Act being not complied with (person being not confronted with his previous statement)-Point (even though it may be a question of law) not permitted to be raised for first time before Supreme Court-Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 145. Sikandar Hayat v. Fazal Karim P L D 1971 S C 730 ref. (b) Adverse possession-Must be open, overt and hostile to Knowledge of true owner-Mere entry in revenue records would not support plea of adverse possession. Date of hearing : 17th April 1973.                                                                                                                                        ORDER          ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This petition for special leave to appeal has arisen out of a suit instituted by the petitioner, Muhammad Hakim, for a declaration that he was the owner in possession of land comprising one-fourth share of the respondent, Sher Alam, in Khasra No. 2822, situate in village Shamat Pur, tehsil and district Mardan. The petitioner claimed that originally the entire Khasra number, measuring 24 kanals and 5 marlas, was owned by one Muhammad Afzal Khan and two brothers, Sher Afgan and Sher Alam, the first mentioned having one-half share, and the two brothers having one-fourth share each. By two separate sale deeds the petitioner purchased one-half share belonging to Muhammad Afzal, and the remaining one-half from Sher Afgan, specifying the area sold by Sher Afgan as 12 kanals. In other words, he claimed that Sher Afgan sold to the petitioner not only his own share but also the share of his brother Sher Alam. In pursuance of the registered sale deed a mutation was attested in the revenue records. This was challenged in appeal by the res pondent but the appeal was withdrawn on…